CONE's Past Cases & Campaigns

Walker Landfill Expansion (updated November 5, 2003)

The Escarpment Link (updated March 22, 2003)

Red Hill Creek Expressway (updated May 28, 2003)

Niagara Escarpment Plan - Five Year Review (updated November 3, 2001)

Smart Growth (updated March 19, 2003)

Springridge Farm (updated February 19, 2003)

Canterbury Hills Conference Centre (updated December 1, 2002)

Bill Murdoch Private Members Bill to Abolish the NEC (updated December 21, 2001)

CONE Wins Appeal Against Controversial Development In Grey County (updated October 28, 2000)

Milton Land Grab (updated October 28, 2000)

Escarpment Act Red Tape Reduction Amendments (updated August 11, 2000)

Niagara Land Company Winery Resort Refused By Cabinet (updated June 26, 2000)

The northerly portion of the landfill site is in the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) Area. CONE is opposed to any expansion to the landfill within the NEP Area.

Walker's application could be the first test of a landmark 1993 legislative prohibition against landfills on the Escarpment. In 1993, after considerable effort by POWER, CONE and a backbench government MPP, an amendment to the NEP and a concurrent amendment to Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act were made which prohibit new or expanded waste disposal sites in the NEP Area.

View CONE's comments on the Proposed Terms of Reference for the Walker Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment (November 5, 2003)

CONE is participating in a hearing in support of the NEC's proposal to add about 2200 hectares (5439 acres) of land in Dundas, Waterdown and Burlington to the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area.

To find out more visit our the Escarpment Link page.

To find out more about the project and its current status visit the Friends of Red Hill valley web site at www.hwcn.org/link/forhv.

CONE's efforts are currently focussed on getting the Niagara Escarpment Commission to require a new Development Permit application for the project from the City of Hamilton.

On May 28, 2003, CONE and Friends of Red Hill Valley wrote to the NEC requesting that they issue a stop work order order under the province's Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act against any construction work in the portion of the Red Hill Valley that lies within NEC jurisdiction until such time as the City has applied for and received a new Development Permit.

View CONE's May 28, 2003 media release "Stop expressway construction until proper permits in place"

View CONE's May 28, 2003 letter to the NEC requesting a stop work order against the City

No action has been taken by the NEC as of yet.

What can you do? Download the Friends of Red Hill Valley's NEC Action Alert (Adobe File - 341 KB)

To find out more visit our Niagara Escarpment Plan Five Year Review page.

In mid-February 2003, the panel issued its draft discussion paper Shape the Future and draft Strategic Directions for a Central Ontario Smart Growth Strategy. Both documents are available on the website of the Ontario Smart Growth Secretariat at www.smartgrowth.gov.on.ca.

View CONE's comments on the Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel's draft advice on a Smart Growth Strategy (March 19, 2003)

View the Niagara Escarpment Commission's comments (March 21, 2003)(Adobe File - 368 KB)

On December 30, 2002, the Minister of Natural Resources issued a shocking decision, setting aside the hearing officer's recommendation and ordering that the development be approved.

The Minister's decision to disagree with the hearing officer's findings calls into question the very applicability of the NEP itself. As such, the implications of the decision go far beyond the Springridge Farm application.

Len Gertler, distinguished Professor Emeritus, University of Waterloo, and author of the 1968 report commissioned by then-Premier John Robarts which ultimately led to the passage of Escarpment protection legislation, wrote in a letter to CONE in January of this year that "the creation of one additional rural lot by means of a severance has much more serious repercussions than may at first be apparent" and that, as a result of the Minister's decision, "the door would be opened for destroying the very foundation on which the entire [Niagara Escarpment Plan] rests. This is clearly too high a cost."

The Minister's decision would seem to indicate that the NEC, Niagara Escarpment Hearing Officers, and the Minister himself have the discretion to apply, or not apply, the policies of the NEP.

It is disturbing that a Plan that has been in place for nearly 20 years, and which has undergone extensive scrutiny through various legal challenges and two major policy reviews, could in future be treated as merely a list of suggested guidelines.

• Minister's decision throws the door open to rampant development on the Niagara Escarpment (February 19, 2003 media release)
  
• Media Backgrounder (February 19, 2003)
  

In response to public concern, the proponent announced on November 28, 2002 that it was deferring its application in order to reconsider the scale of their proposal. CONE is waiting to see the revised plans.

Abolishing the NEC would take us back to where we were 20 years ago when each municipality had different rules for what forms of development were and were not allowed on the Escarpment, and the Escarpment was being threatened by piecemeal development. The Niagara Escarpment is a single biosphere and requires a uniform planning regime. It is a provincial resource and requires provincial protection.

CONE was more perplexed by Mr. Murdoch's bill than concerned. Despite some recent questionable decisions, the NEC has proven itself to be an effective body for protecting the Escarpment, and they have gained widespread support amongst Escarpment landowners, and all-party support in the provincial legislature under every government. They have also gained international recognition In 1990 the Escarpment was named a United Nations World Biosphere Reserve. This designation is awarded to regions that have global, as well as national or regional ecological significance, and which are protected by progressive planning regimes which maintain natural integrity while accommodating the needs of growing human populations. The NEC was also championed as a model for protecting Ontario's Oak Ridges Moraine.

The NEC is not perfect, of course, as CONE's activities over the years will attest. But it is the best model we have for protecting the Escarpment as a whole for generations to come.

Mr. Murdoch's bill was not a complete surprise. He is a long-time opponent of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and this is not the first time that he has called for it to be abolished. However this is clearly not representative of the provincial government's position on the issue, as the quick failure of Mr. Murdoch's Bill shows.

The proposal clearly violated the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) in that commercial/industrial uses are permitted in the Rural Area only if they serve "agriculture and the rural community" and are "small-scale" (generally less than 5,000 square feet). The 2,400-square-foot building for the storage units did not satisfy either of these criteria. It was not a service specifically for the rural and agricultural community and, together with an existing, 4,800-square-foot commercial building already on the property (that pre-dated Escarpment development controls), it would have exceeded the "small-scale" size cut-off.

This incompatibility with the NEP's land use policies was recognized by planning staff at the NEC who recommended that the application be refused. However at its April 2000 meeting, the NEC voted by a razor-thin majority to reject the staff reccommendation and permit the development.

CONE immediately appealed the NEC's decision. The hearing was held in Owen Sound on July 25, 2000 before hearing officer David Hutcheon. CONE was represented by the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) and joined by supporters from the Grey Association for Better Planning, the Owen Sound Field Naturalists, the Beaver Valley Bruce Trail Club, and the Bruce Peninsula Environment Group.

CONE's main argument was that the proposal violated the NEP because (a) it was not "small scale" and (b) it was not designed to service the rural and agricultural community. CONE argued that while there may be a market for the storage units from residents of nearby Owen Sound, this land use belongs in the city, not in the Escarpment Rural Area.

CONE was also concerned about the cumulative impacts of this development given the commercial uses already in existence on the property, which include an existing commercial building and a TV tower. The storage unit proposal would have essentially created a mini-industrial park in the middle of Grey County's rural area.

Lastly, CONE argued that the proposed development represented an abuse of process by the landowner, who had already sought, and been refused, a series of similar developments on his property.

In his report to the Minister of Natural Resources, hearing officer David Hutcheon agreed with CONE's arguments with regard to the incompatibiliy with the Niagara Escarpment Plan, and recommended that the Minister overturn the NEC's decision to grant the development permit. Minister of Natural Resources John Snobelen agreed and on October 10, 2000, he overturned the NEC's decision and directed them not to issue the development permit.

View or download the hearing officer's report (Adobe File - 27 KB)

CONE would like to thank CELA for their tremendous legal assistance and all of our supporters who came out to the hearing to voice their opposition to this development. The Minister's decision sends a clear message that he is serious about upholding the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

Originally, four landowners wanted urban designations on their Milton properties, which are designated Escarpment Protection Area and Escarpment Rural Area in the Niagara Escarpment Plan. Then one of them, John Grant, withdrew entirely while another, Jannock Ltd., was granted a series of deferrals by the Consolidated Hearings Board (the Joint Board) as the company restructured. All of the lands lie just outside the Town of Milton at the base of the Escarpment south of Kelso Conservation Area at the corner of Steeles Avenue and Tremaine Road (60 km west of Toronto).

Map showing the four properties which had originally applied for removal from the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area

A hearing proceeded on the other two applications, those by Central Milton Holdings Ltd. and 825927 Ontario Inc. (Curcuruto), over a four-week period in early 2000. The hearing panel which heard the applications consisted of Norman Jackson of the Ontario Municipal Board and Pauline Browes and David Hutcheon of the Environmental Assessment Board. A Joint Board was required because there were applications for municipal official plan amendments as well as Niagara Escarpment Plan amendments to be considered.

CONE, other citizens’ groups and many local residents supported the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s position that the lands in question ought to stay with the Niagara Escarpment Plan, with their existing, non-urban land use designations.

CONE's objections to the applications were as follows:

1) We are opposed to removal of any lands from the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area in view of the fact that a full 63 percent of the Plan Area originally proposed was deleted in the late 1970s. The present Plan Area is the absolute minimum necessary to fulfil the purpose and objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. No Ontario Cabinet of any political stripe has ever approved such a removal, in spite of numerous requests to do so.

2) The Milton applications, which are for lands designated Escarpment Protection Area and Escarpment Rural Area, are unjustified in that the Town of Milton does not need the lands for urban development purposes since they are outside the identified urban expansion boundary.

3) CONE agreed with a November 1997 NEC staff recommendation that any application to modify Plan Area boundaries constitutes "substantial change" to the environment and therefore should be dealt with only through a comprehensive review of the Plan.

View CONE's submission to the Consolidated Hearings Board (March 9, 2000)

The Joint Board's hearing report issued on August 11, 2000 denied the application of Mr. Curcuruto, but, in an unusual move, left the door open for Central Milton Holdings to change the designation of their lands to allow for urban expansion, pending pending approval of a board-ordered residential concept plan for their Escarpment Rural Area property, to be submitted within one year. Both landowners were denied permission to pull their lands out of the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area completely.

Evidently seeing the prospects of success slim, Jannock Ltd., the landowner who had earlier been granted a deferral, completely withdrew its application for its lands after reviewing the Joint Board’s decision.

The full environmental impacts of opening up the Central Milton Holdings lands for development will not be known until they produce the detailed concept plan for the Board's consideration. The Board has listed several guidelines which the plan must meet. Encouragingly, these guidelines seem to preclude the development of a typical subdivision. In their report, the Board states that it "does not find on the evidence that an ordinary subdivision would meet the objectives of the NEP and NEPDA."

View the report of the Consolidated Hearings Board (Adobe File - 90 KB)

CONE applauds the Board's decision to limit the expansion of Milton by maintaining the Escarpment Protection Area designation on Mr. Curcuruto's property, but the end result of the overall decision would be that Milton's urban area be allowed to encroach a little further on to the Escarpment and that is cause for concern.

View CONE's August 11, 2000 press release

CONE is pleased that the NEC has held firm to its position by appealing the Central Milton Holdings portion of the Joint Board’s decision to Cabinet. The NEC’s 20-page appeal document is interesting reading for planning enthusiasts. In short, the NEC argues that the Joint Board made an error in policy by stating that Central Milton Holding’s application is premature until the Board sees a concept plan for urban development of that property. The NEC’s opinion is that the principle of development -- that is, whether or not there should be a change in designation to urban -- must be decided first, and only after that should secondary (concept) planning be addressed.

Curcuruto has also appealed to Cabinet, but the NEC has asked Cabinet to confirm the Joint Board’s refusal of that application.

There is no time limit on Cabinet’s deliberations. Cabinet decisions on petitions (appeals) of Joint Board decisions can take months or, in some cases, years. If Cabinet confirms the Joint Board’s decision, then the one-year period for Central Milton Holdings to submit a concept plan begins at that time. Meanwhile, there is plenty of other land in Milton beyond the Escarpment that is already designated urban and can meet the town’s urban growth needs for at least the next 15 years.

The most significant amendment to the Act makes stop work orders available where a landowner is undertaking a development in contravention of the Act. CONE supported this amendment but objected to it being limited only to those contraventions that the Minister or his/her delegate (such as the NEC) deem likely to cause a "risk to public safety or significant environmental damage." CONE believes that a violation is a violation and that all contraventions of the Act should be treated the same. There should not be room for anyone to have discretion to decide which violations are important enough to stop.

CONE also noted in our comments our continuing objection to "omnibus"-style legislation that includes far more amendments than the public can possibly digest within the very limited public comment periods. In fact, in this case, the mandatory minimum 30-day public comment period under the Environmental Bill of Rights began on May 12, but the actual text of the proposed amendments was not made available to the public until May 30! CONE requested an extension of the comment period but the Ministry of Natural Resources refused and left the deadline at June 11. As a result, the public had only 11 days to review, consider and comment on changes to several environmental statutes. CONE made an official complaint to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario about the Ministry of Natural Resources’ blatant disregard for the law in this case.

View CONE's comments on Red Tape Reduction Bill Three (June 11, 2000)

All of this follows on the heels of amendments to the Act passed by the Legislature in December 1999 under the ominbus-style legislation Red Tape Reduction Bill #2. While the highest-profile changes in that Bill were the shift to a period of up to ten years between Niagara Escarpment Plan reviews, a host of so-called housekeeping or administrative amendments were approved as well.

In a submission on the bill to the Ministry of Natural Resources in 1999, CONE lent its support to those amendments that will improve implementation of the Plan without compromising protection of the Niagara Escarpment. However, CONE still has concerns about some of the amendments.

First, CONE believes that there should have been provision for an optional Plan review at the five-year mark of the ten-year period which would be scoped to a few key issues that had arisen in those five years.

Second, the bill allows some Plan amendment decisions to be made by the Minister instead of Cabinet, which has decided on all amendments in the past. CONE believes that since the Niagara Escarpment Plan is a provincially legislated land use plan of broad, province-wide public interest, all amendment decisions should continue to be made by the full Cabinet.

Finally, CONE disagrees with the change that allows a development permit appeal decision to be made by the hearing officer (rather than going to the Minister) in cases where the hearing officer agreed with the NEC's decision and where the municipality in which the property is located had not appealed the NEC's decision. CONE believes that this provision accords second-class status to other permit appellants such as citizens' groups and individual private citizens.

View the January 2001 Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (Adobe File - 62 KB) as amended by the 1999 and 2000 Red Tape Reduction Acts

Cabinet made the decision on June 19, 2000. It represents a culmination of over a year of steady pressure from CONE as well as local residents, neighbouriong wineries, and a host of others who felt that an urban development of this nature belonged in urban areas, not on prime grape growing lands.

Thanks to all of those who answered CONE's call to write, e-mail and phone the Premier, Minister of Natural Resources, and their local MPPs. Your work has paid off!!

View CONE's press release applauding the provincial government for their decision

The Niagara Land Company had applied to build what amounted to a four-season "winery resort" right at the edge of the Niagara Escarpment forest above Vineland on the Niagara Peninsula. Turning its back on the ecological significance of the escarpment as a United Nations World Biosphere Reserve, the company would build an 86,000 square foot development -- the area of 57 average-size homes. It would consist of a winery, a 120-seat restaurant, a culinary teaching centre and guest cottages housing over 110 people.

Cabinet's June 19 decision rejected the entire proposal.

The Ontario wine-production industry has matured over the past quarter century; Ontario wines now compete globally. Recently, the Vintners Quality Alliance, an association of Ontario wine-producers who use all-Ontario grapes, stated that the full development of the industry requires planting an additional 2,000 acres, mostly on the Niagara Peninsula. This is not merely good farmland; its microclimate and soils make it unique and very special. The VQA's proposal to extend the peninsula's vineyards is a good one. Rejecting this development helps make this possible.

The Niagara Escarpment Plan allows bed and breakfast homes for about six to eight guests each, but it does not allow a resort on grape-growing lands. The Plan does allow a winery as a land use that is an adjunct to the agricultural activity of growing grapes.

Recently, the Plan has been interpreted as allowing a restaurant as a spin-off to a winery on grape-growing lands. The Niagara Land Company had applied to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan to permit its winery resort. But no one can argue that the 56 guest cottages in the Niagara Land Company's proposal are an adjunct to growing grapes. A clear decision was needed on where the dominoes must stop falling, and on June 19 we got it.

Promoting the Ontario wine industry through "agri-tourism" ventures is a good thing. The debate was over where these enterprises should locate. Commenting on the winery resort, the planning staff at the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Niagara Region and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs are all opposed to putting overnight accommodation for 110 people on this grape-growing land. They say that the guest cottages belong in nearby urban areas.

Cabinet's decision to refuse the Vineland resort reinforces this view and sends a clear message that the Niagara Escarpment Plan must be upheld and precious agricultural lands must remain in agricultural, not urban, use.